I've long held that propagandists use whatever is convenient to advance their agenda. In Hitler's case, it is apparent that he claimed both a divine calling in his genocidal program, as well as pragmatics to influence the intelligentsia.

In this regard, one should expect that a propagandist of whatever stripe will inappropriately utilize whatever concepts have widespread currency in the target culture. The issue is not whether a propagandist makes reference to a concept, since such a person will do or say whatever will render others more likely to give them assistance or assent. That a concept is widespread is enough to make it likely for a propagandist to usurp it to his own ends. The issue, then, is whether adherence to some conceptual framework compels a particular course of action.

It is clear that accepting the concepts of evolutionary biology does not compel genocidal behavior. Nor does it compel fascism, communism, or robber-baron style Social Darwinism. (If it did compel behavior of some sort, only one of the options would be engaged, not some opting for A, others for B, and still others for options C through Z.)

Antievolution advocates know they have no chance of showing compelled human behavior stemming from evolutionary biology. Instead, they concentrate upon hints and allegations that evolutionary biology was mentioned by history's villains, or was discussed by them, or even that they must have been taught the concepts and therefore influenced in some malign fashion. While antieovlutionists will readily recognize that Hitler and the Nazi leadership's use of Christian rhetoric and references in their public speeches and writings are belied by their actions, the antievolutionists seem not to recognize that Nazi invocation of recognizable scientific concepts has no more reliability as an indication of causal influence.

While Sir Arthur Keith's views on Hitler and Darwinism are a staple of antievolutionist screeds, it is my opinion that Keith was simply mistaken in his analysis of Hitler. Even a cursory reading of Hitler's own output shows far more familiarity and reliance upon scriptural sources than any esoteric realm of scientific endeavor. The passages in Mein Kampf that are offered as evidence of Hitler's adherence to Darwinian principles are invariably weak allusions which would require nothing more than listening to overheard conversations in a cafe for buzzphrases to spice up a speech or passage, not nuanced arguments showing any depth of acquaintance with biological practice. Hitler and his band of fellow propagandists did what dissembling dictators and sycophants have always done, which was to try to bind the people to them through rhetoric. And, as dissemblers past, present, and future will show, that is done by referring to concepts that are known to the people and spinning a tale that suits their ends.

This topic has become very relevant lately due to Coral Ridge Ministries' release of the movie and book Darwin's Deadly Legacy.

Quote

It is clear that accepting the concepts of evolutionary biology does not compel genocidal behavior. Nor does it compel fascism, communism, or robber-baron style Social Darwinism. (If it did compel behavior of some sort, only one of the options would be engaged, not some opting for A, others for B, and still others for options C through Z.)

As Elsberry shows here, it's just about anything considered bad that's linked back to Darwinism. Only democratic, free-market economics being based on the Bible goes free.

But let's see ...

I don't know much about Italian and Spanism fascism; but I do know they were based on nationalist ideas. The same with German Nazism. In Mein Kampf Hitler writes about Nature as a Godess with an eternal will, a different will for each species and each human race. It's not purposeless evolution, but rather intelligent design.

Karl Marx accepted darwin's theory of evolution as the history of nature, but rejected its relevance for human society. Charles darwin was building faily directly on Thomas Malthus' claim that it was unavoidable that populations would grow faster than food supply. Any Marxist would say that it is social organization that prevents an equally efficient increase in food supply.

As for social Darwinism, this is a very odd fellow. It's generally used for Herbert Spencer's laissez-faire liberalism, where the only task of the state was to protect the weak against the strong, while allowing the strong free enterprise. Not exactly the same as fascist totalitarianism or Marxist planned economics.